|
Splinter posted:Why would you go with a tiny 35mm sensor then? I wouldn't put on my chainmail for anything smaller than medium format. I read about medium format, but my understanding is that they're not good for subjects that are moving rapidly. If that's not correct then I'll look into them in more detail.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Uhhhhh I mean you could definitely crank up the shutter speed and crank down the aperture to shoot sports with medium format if you enjoy being miserable. Fuji jpgs are really good and save me a ton of workflow for my job. You really don't need any editing and at iso 800 and above you can have it bring up shadows/bring down highlights in camera. Sony jpgs are not good. Both the last and current gen fuji sensors are plenty fine and the glass does make a huge difference, since you'll be paying about twice as much for an equally sharp sony lens. Don't worry about sensors, I shoot m43 for wildlife and sports and do 20x24 prints with no problem at all. If you're just doing digital distro nobody will be able to tell at all. harperdc posted:Technique and skill will always win out, and that could be with a 15-year-old cropped-frame camera or a brand new pro full frame one. There's an old birder that posts in one of the groups I see on flickr that shoots with a loving coolpix and it looks better than most people shooting a fullframe because he can somehow get super close and has a ton of control over the background.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I shoot sports with one of those flintstone cameras with the bird inside. Technically mirrorless so I can post about it here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
For real though, OP, I wouldn’t get too hung up on sensor size for your use case. When I got rid of my Canon DSLR and jumped to mirrorless it was a hard choice between Sony full frame and Fuji. The former won out because it has IBIS (and I have a lot of older lenses to adapt) and I was starting to gravitate more towards shooting things where shallower depth of field was more desirable for me—portraiture and the like. Of the two, it sounds like Fuji is the way to go for you. Good jpegs, and still very nice image quality/performance. Don’t know how the lens prices stack up, but I do know that going from Canon’s EF mount to Sony FE walloped me with a massive case of sticker shock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
President Beep posted:For real though, OP, I wouldn’t get too hung up on sensor size for your use case. When I got rid of my Canon DSLR and jumped to mirrorless it was a hard choice between Sony full frame and Fuji. The former won out because it has IBIS (and I have a lot of older lenses to adapt) and I was starting to gravitate more towards shooting things where shallower depth of field was more desirable for me—portraiture and the like. Fuji lenses are high quality, but also quite a bit more affordable than Sony's. For instance, the Sony 70-200 2.8 retails right now at $2598, whereas the Fuji Equivalent (50-140mm 2.8) is only $1399, and the Sony 85mm 1.4 is $1798, while the faster Fuji equivalent (56mm 1.2) is only $799 new. Those are obviously extreme examples, but typically Fuji lenses will cost you less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
Yea and Fuji lenses are incredible. I can’t think of another lens as good as the 16-55 F2.8 that I’ve used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 04:30
|
|
If you don't want to do post then don't waste your time with a Sony, every Sony shooter I've ever met talks about how much post they do and if you're using SOOC jpegs anyway you almost certainly won't be able to notice the difference full frame offers.holocaust bloopers posted:Yea and Fuji lenses are incredible. I can’t think of another lens as good as the 16-55 F2.8 that I’ve used. Seriously considering picking one up while they're on sale, but the 16-80 is still markedly cheaper and looks to be a little more compact, plus I IS to make up for the slower max aperture. For people who have used both, is the 16-55 a significant enough bump in IQ to justify the extra $200 and weight over the 16-80?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:Uhhhhh I mean you could definitely crank up the shutter speed and crank down the aperture to shoot sports with medium format if you enjoy being miserable. A pack of bird seed is a fraction of the price of a super tele and yet it has more range.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
The 16-80 looks really interesting. My 18-55 got scratched enough for it to matter and I've been too stubborn to replace it. The upgraded 16-80 might be enough of an excuse. Reviews seem pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
Hello Mirrorless goons, I was into photography many years ago when I was young and broke. I'm looking to get back into photography on something that isn't my phone. I've seen people recommending the Fujifilm X-T2. The other camera I was considering was the Panasonic G85. I'd like to do a bit of everything, film and video, Mostly in the garden and people portaits. So keeping in mind that I've just been taking all my photos and videos on a phone, anything is going to look like a huge improvement. Should I consider going cheaper? I can't miss what I've never had. What would you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
The GX85 kit (12-32 pancake, 45-150 tele, both slow) is $250 cheaper than the G85 kit, at $450 new. It'll take the same pictures and is easier to pack, but is missing an external mic port. I personally refuse to give up IBIS and like the cheap lenses with M4/3, but an XT2 kit will make prettier jpgs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 08:44
|
|
|
Depends on Black Friday/Holiday deals and how much you shoot video. If you shoot video more than Panasonic. Also buying used body is okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 09:45
|
|
|
Gx85 and G85 are amazing values for money, still. While the GX9 and G95 are improvements, they aren't enough to justify the price difference for most people imo. Waiting for phase detect af and usbc in a non e-m1x sized body before I upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
I keep meaning to put my Gx85 and lenses up on the buy+sell thread since I got the Fuji. Thanks for reminding me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
Ola posted:A pack of bird seed is a fraction of the price of a super tele and yet it has more range. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
heffray posted:The GX85 kit (12-32 pancake, 45-150 tele, both slow) is $250 cheaper than the G85 kit, at $450 new. It'll take the same pictures and is easier to pack, but is missing an external mic port. I personally refuse to give up IBIS and like the cheap lenses with M4/3, but an XT2 kit will make prettier jpgs. I tried this for one day and sent it back. I couldn't stand that stupid viewfinder. Why do you need that if you have an articulating screen?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:I tried this for one day and sent it back. I couldn't stand that stupid viewfinder. Why do you need that if you have an articulating screen? Shooting in sunlight for one.  Screens wash out super easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Ola posted:A pack of bird seed is a fraction of the price of a super tele and yet it has more range. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Thanks for the input, everyone. The deciding factor is the need for post-processing and if Sony really does require using RAWs and editing them, that's reason enough to buy Fuji, so I ordered the bundle of XH1, battery grip, and 16-55mm lens. Hopefully I don't end up disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Thanks for the input, everyone. The deciding factor is the need for post-processing and if Sony really does require using RAWs and editing them, that's reason enough to buy Fuji, so I ordered the bundle of XH1, battery grip, and 16-55mm lens. Hopefully I don't end up disappointed. You won't be. Great rig, and current pricing is off the loving charts good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
I seriously need to stop using RAW on my X-H1 and let Fuji do all the post processing work. The only thing I think I’d miss is modifying white balance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
I think processing the raw files is really rewarding, like a second look at the scene. And sometime between sorting and the final product is when your work looks the best, when it still has potental.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Ola posted:A pack of bird seed is a fraction of the price of a super tele and yet it has more range. Baiting only really works for some species, mainly garden birds. It's also generally not considered ethically great to bait wild animals for photographs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:I think processing the raw files is really rewarding, like a second look at the scene. And sometime between sorting and the final product is when your work looks the best, when it still has potental. I love post processing, I was really proud of an edit I did for a goon of some hummingbirds a little while ago. They took a great photo and I loved working on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
I can’t fathom not shooting in raw unless you don’t own a device that can run Capture One or similar. Even if your workflow 99% of the time is simply a batch output to JPEG, raw files give you so much room to work with if an otherwise great shot is like 2 stops under (or over) exposed, or if you missed the WB badly. The X-H1 is great. The 16-55/2.8 is great. The 90/2 is the lens that I will not be without.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 12:29
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:I tried this for one day and sent it back. I couldn't stand that stupid viewfinder. Why do you need that if you have an articulating screen? The gx85 just has a normal viewfinder afaik. Some other versions of the gx line does have a flippy viewfinder though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:I can’t fathom not shooting in raw unless you don’t own a device that can run Capture One or similar. Even if your workflow 99% of the time is simply a batch output to JPEG, raw files give you so much room to work with if an otherwise great shot is like 2 stops under (or over) exposed, or if you missed the WB badly. Each, me too, on both processing and the camera/lenses. The real fault of the 16-55 is that it is not quite as magic as the 56 or the 90, but that's an almost impossible standard to meet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Shooting in RAW is great if you have the time to post process a bunch of stuff or if you have a specific look you’re going for. My problem is I shoot RAW for everything and really only need that extra flexibility 10% of the time. I’ll probably continue to shoot RAW, but only work with the JPEG images unless I need to dig out the lossless copy for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Pretty Cool Name posted:The gx85 just has a normal viewfinder afaik. Some other versions of the gx line does have a flippy viewfinder though. Usually the complaint is that it is a field sequential viewfinder, which is a cost cutting measure that may or may not bother you in practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I am a total newb to photography so I apologize in advance if I ask any silly questions. I started doing a Pro Wrestling Podcast and bought a Panasonic G85 for shooting video and occasionally some action photography. I recently shot an interview in low light and it didn't come out well even though I used a bright light on the top of the camera. I am now looking to get a lens that can shoot video well in lower light for interviews and that can also shoot some lower light action shots well from relatively close distances (I'm usually within 20-30 feet of the ring). Unfortunately most of the local wrestling events seem to have poor lighting so it's tough to get good shots and interview videos with the standard lens that came with the camera. I don't really have much experience doing this and I'm learning as I go, but would the Panasonic 12-35mm GX Vario II lens be a good choice for an all around lens to do all of this? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MY1ICID/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=AHANP7RK1NKEU&psc=1 It seems to check all the boxes but I wanted to see if there were other, better options or better values? With the holiday season coming there seem to be sales popping up all around, and I noticed a couple used ones at decent prices. If I were to buy it used, what price range should I look at? There was a guy selling the 2012 version for $650 used near me with a free UV filter but that seemed way too high considering the 2017 model is only $150 more. I appreciate any advice or pointers you can provide!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Shooting poorly lit sporting events will make you hate life. Most lenses with super fast apertures don't have range. Most lenses with range don't have fast apertures. Lenses with both cost more than you want to spend. I like to shoot my kid's basketball games. From 30 feet away, even with a crop sensor, 50mm doesn't cut it. It's entirely possible that 35mm lens works for your particular purposes, but I'd make sure there's a good return policy in case it doesn't. I recently got a 55-200mm 3.5-4.8 lens that I'm hoping finally solves my indoor lighting issues, but I haven't had a chance to test it out yet. I'm sure someone else here has a better idea what the ideal specs are for your situation. Video interviews are a little easier because there's not a lot of movement. A fast f2 lens and a cranked up ISO might be all you need. If you need extra light, a couple of inexpensive LED light banks that can be dimmed would probably look good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
How’s Panasonic for adapting lenses? For interviews you could probably find an older, fast manual focus prime lens for relatively cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Pinche Rudo posted:Hi everyone, I am a total newb to photography so I apologize in advance if I ask any silly questions. I started doing a Pro Wrestling Podcast and bought a Panasonic G85 for shooting video and occasionally some action photography. I recently shot an interview in low light and it didn't come out well even though I used a bright light on the top of the camera. I am now looking to get a lens that can shoot video well in lower light for interviews and that can also shoot some lower light action shots well from relatively close distances (I'm usually within 20-30 feet of the ring). Unfortunately most of the local wrestling events seem to have poor lighting so it's tough to get good shots and interview videos with the standard lens that came with the camera. I think the 12-35 will be a bit too wide at 35 to get good action shots from that kind of distance. If you don't want to deal with swapping lenses, I'd look at the Leica 12-60 f2.8-f4 (which is only really f2.8 at its widest setting), or maybe the Olympus 12-100 F4, though that is a beast of a lens. If you don't mind swapping to a longer lens for the action shots, the 12-35 would probably be ideal for the interview videos though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Thank you folks for all the tips and information! This is all so helpful and informative, I was absolutely clueless. Would the Leica 12-60 f2.8-f4 do well enough in lower light for stuff like this? Am I even correct in calling this "lower light"? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5E1NH8gFLD/
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Pinche Rudo posted:Thank you folks for all the tips and information! This is all so helpful and informative, I was absolutely clueless. Would the Leica 12-60 f2.8-f4 do well enough in lower light for stuff like this? Am I even correct in calling this "lower light"? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5E1NH8gFLD/ I can't tell what's real and not real in that photograph. But I think they probably used a strobe or speedlight to capture all those details. The wrestling venue might have options for photographers to use strobes close up. That's the ideal situation if they'll let you do it, but it might get in the way of the action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I can't tell what's real and not real in that photograph. I am not an expert but I was at that show and she didn't appear to have a flash on the camera, she had a GoPro mounted on the shoe
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Pinche Rudo posted:Thank you folks for all the tips and information! This is all so helpful and informative, I was absolutely clueless. Would the Leica 12-60 f2.8-f4 do well enough in lower light for stuff like this? Am I even correct in calling this "lower light"? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5E1NH8gFLD/ There's a lot of Photoshop/post production going on in that shot, like a lot a lot. But interesting that she's using a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 on a Canon 7d, according to the hashtags. Being on a 1.6x Canon crop sensor, the nearest equivalent m43 lens is going to be the panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (dainty and portable), or the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 (paint can full of lead shot). Maybe look at the 35-100, and grab something like the 20mm pancake for the interview videos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:There's a lot of Photoshop/post production going on in that shot, like a lot a lot. But interesting that she's using a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 on a Canon 7d, according to the hashtags. Being on a 1.6x Canon crop sensor, the nearest equivalent m43 lens is going to be the panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (dainty and portable), or the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 (paint can full of lead shot). Maybe look at the 35-100, and grab something like the 20mm pancake for the interview videos. Awesome, thank you for all the help!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Pinche Rudo posted:Thank you folks for all the tips and information! This is all so helpful and informative, I was absolutely clueless. Would the Leica 12-60 f2.8-f4 do well enough in lower light for stuff like this? Am I even correct in calling this "lower light"? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5E1NH8gFLD/ That looks like a still from a video game. Hyperprocessing FTW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
The fake background blur is pretty awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 23:30
|
|